2014 CX-5 GT vs 2013 CX-5 T vs 2013 RAV4

The main problem I see with the US and wagons is pricing.

In the US the CX5 GT ($27.6k) is almost 7% LESS than the Mazda6 GT ($29.5k)

Mazda loads up the 6 GT more so than they do the CX-5 GT.

The Touring models are priced almost identically. And the base model 6 is priced under the CX-5 Sport despite the base 6 *HAVING* the 2.5L engine. I feel the base 6 Sport is a very good value.

So the pricing is really just a matter of how Mazda decides to equip them. They could price a 6 wagon to very close to the CX-5 prices.

Also note that the 6 is a foot longer than the CX-5. The CX-5 is Mazda 3 sized. So it would not be surprising for a 6 wagon to be priced above a CX-5 as it is a longer, more upscale vehicle. It is Mazda's flagship sedan.
 
FWIW, Subaru Impreza Wagon is only $500 more than the sedan and Mazda 3 4 door costs $1625 less than the 5 door.

You can't look at it that way. The Mazda3 sedan is offered in lower trims than the 5-door. You can get a Mazda3 i SV and Sport in the sedan. The 5-door is only available as a Touring and Grand Touring. The difference between a Touring/Grand Touring sedan and 5-door is about $400-$500
 
Hey guys, have any of you driven a Subaru XV Crosstrek? Similar price range and MPG. Some specs from Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/xv-crosstrek/2013/features-specs.html?sub=suv&style=200433893
25/33mpg
5' 3.6" high
5' 10.1" wide
14' 7.2" long
8.7" ground clearance
22.3 cu ft seats up
51.9 cu ft seats down

'14 Mazda CX-5:
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2014/features-specs.html?sub=suv&style=200459301
25/31 mpg
5' 7.3" high
6' 0.4" wide
14' 11.3" long
8.5" ground clearance
34.1 cu ft seats up
65.4 cu ft seats down

Our '07 Mazda CX-7 has been exhibiting several issues and I honestly want to get rid of it ASAP. I previously had a Mazda RX-8 and loved it, but didn't own it long enough to get a feel for Mazda's long-term reliability, but this CX-7 has been a bit of a nightmare, so I'm honestly wary of getting another Mazda product. Also, if I'm going to buy new, it would be nice if I had a closer dealer to work with while it's under warranty, and my closest Mazda dealer is about 30 mins away, whereas I have local Toyota and Subaru dealers.

My other problem is that I've been thinking about trading this CX-7 in for a while and I still can't make up my mind about what type of vehicle I want to replace it with. On the one hand I'd like something with super-great MPG, while on the other I often find myself lusting after something with more of a real 4x4 mode (for our occasional, though not frequent, extra-bad CT snowstorms) and possibly even towing capability (I toyed with the notion of buying a boat last year, but I'm pretty sure I won't pursue that further so I probably shouldn't concern myself with towing capacity). It's just the three of us (one daughter), and most of the time it's just me and one other person in one of our cars at any given time, so I don't really care that much about passenger room, but I would like to have good cargo capacity with the seats down when needed. To be honest, I kind of lust after the Toyota FJ Cruiser, and have considered getting a used one, but the MPG rating and rear visibility (for when my wife's driving) concerns me. Sorry for the long rant.

Anyway, the Subaru XV Crosstrek sounds appealing, but the CX-7 is actually my wife's main car (I drive an '02 Lexus SC430 w/about 100k miles - another car I'd like to trade in, mostly because of the poor snow driving, but it has been super-reliable). My wife likes to drive high up, so I think she won't be thrilled with the XV Crosstrek. Even though it has very good ground clearance, the roof height is lower, so her first impression of it when I showed her a picture of it online was that it looked more like a car than an SUV.
 
XV Crosstrek is fugly as most other Subarus, even if it is comparable & has the symmetrical AWD, the 'styling' isn't for me.
 
Hey guys, have any of you driven a Subaru XV Crosstrek? Similar price range and MPG. Some specs from Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/xv-crosstrek/2013/features-specs.html?sub=suv&style=200433893
25/33mpg
5' 3.6" high
5' 10.1" wide
14' 7.2" long
8.7" ground clearance
22.3 cu ft seats up
51.9 cu ft seats down

'14 Mazda CX-5:
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2014/features-specs.html?sub=suv&style=200459301
25/31 mpg
5' 7.3" high
6' 0.4" wide
14' 11.3" long
8.5" ground clearance
34.1 cu ft seats up
65.4 cu ft seats down

Our '07 Mazda CX-7 has been exhibiting several issues and I honestly want to get rid of it ASAP. I previously had a Mazda RX-8 and loved it, but didn't own it long enough to get a feel for Mazda's long-term reliability, but this CX-7 has been a bit of a nightmare, so I'm honestly wary of getting another Mazda product. Also, if I'm going to buy new, it would be nice if I had a closer dealer to work with while it's under warranty, and my closest Mazda dealer is about 30 mins away, whereas I have local Toyota and Subaru dealers.

My other problem is that I've been thinking about trading this CX-7 in for a while and I still can't make up my mind about what type of vehicle I want to replace it with. On the one hand I'd like something with super-great MPG, while on the other I often find myself lusting after something with more of a real 4x4 mode (for our occasional, though not frequent, extra-bad CT snowstorms) and possibly even towing capability (I toyed with the notion of buying a boat last year, but I'm pretty sure I won't pursue that further so I probably shouldn't concern myself with towing capacity). It's just the three of us (one daughter), and most of the time it's just me and one other person in one of our cars at any given time, so I don't really care that much about passenger room, but I would like to have good cargo capacity with the seats down when needed. To be honest, I kind of lust after the Toyota FJ Cruiser, and have considered getting a used one, but the MPG rating and rear visibility (for when my wife's driving) concerns me. Sorry for the long rant.

Anyway, the Subaru XV Crosstrek sounds appealing, but the CX-7 is actually my wife's main car (I drive an '02 Lexus SC430 w/about 100k miles - another car I'd like to trade in, mostly because of the poor snow driving, but it has been super-reliable). My wife likes to drive high up, so I think she won't be thrilled with the XV Crosstrek. Even though it has very good ground clearance, the roof height is lower, so her first impression of it when I showed her a picture of it online was that it looked more like a car than an SUV.

2014 subaru forester?
 
I don't think the XV Crosstrek looks bad. Definitely not nearly as nice looking as the CX-5, but I don't think it's bad. The Forester, OTOH, looks pretty fugly to me. I haven't shown it to my wife, but I suspect she'd hate the look of it, too, but who knows.
 
Meh-- styling leaves a lot to be desired, imo.

CX-5 reliability has been well above average and Mazda overall has received very good reliability ratings.

That being said, I can certainly understand how a problem vehicle can leave a bad taste in your mouth.

I'd go drive both and take it from there.
 
The XV is a beefed-up Impreza... Although exterior dimensions are comparable, interior cargo space is waaaay smaller (the XV compares to a big hatchback). The Forester is a better comparison, for Subaru cars, although a tad bigger than the Cx-5.
 
Hey guys, have any of you driven a Subaru XV Crosstrek? Similar price range and MPG. Some specs from Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/xv-crosstrek/2013/features-specs.html?sub=suv&style=200433893
25/33mpg
5' 3.6" high
5' 10.1" wide
14' 7.2" long
8.7" ground clearance
22.3 cu ft seats up
51.9 cu ft seats down

'14 Mazda CX-5:
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2014/features-specs.html?sub=suv&style=200459301
25/31 mpg
5' 7.3" high
6' 0.4" wide
14' 11.3" long
8.5" ground clearance
34.1 cu ft seats up
65.4 cu ft seats down

These two cars are not similar in size. I like the CX-5 because I'm a big guy (6'-04" and 210 lbs) and it does not make me feel cramped like the Subaru. Also, the cargo/luggage capacity is not even close!

Per the numbers you provided, the Mazda has 26% more cargo area with the rear seats folded down. But, if you have a full load of passengers the Subaru's luggage space is questionable (unless you are simply going to dinner or other event where no luggage, packs or outdoor gear is required). With the seats in the seating position the CX-5 has 53% more luggage/gear space. That's a lot!

My other problem is that I've been thinking about trading this CX-7 in for a while and I still can't make up my mind about what type of vehicle I want to replace it with. On the one hand I'd like something with super-great MPG, while on the other I often find myself lusting after something with more of a real 4x4 mode (for our occasional, though not frequent, extra-bad CT snowstorms)

Trust me, for nasty storm snow/ice driving on public roads you do not need any more "real" of a 4x4 mode! In fact, the CX-5's AWD is much better in the snow/ice than my 2010 F-150 4x4. First off, the "real" 4x4 mode of the F-150 is not "active" like the CX-5's AWD mode. That means it doesn't work well on icy highways at all. And if the icy highway has areas of bare pavement it shouldn't be in 4x4 mode at all (transmission damage). Also, the CX-5's Traction control and Dynamic Stability Control is better than anything that could be implemented on a "real" 4x4. Also, my "real" 4x4 has too tall of a center of gravity to really excel in snowstorms or on icy roads and the suspension is not nearly as supple to maintain traction on slippery side slopes (bumps that the CX-5 laughs at will cause the truck to go into a nasty slide). The limitation of the AWD on the CX-5 isn't in limited traction conditions like ice and snow - it's in high torque applications like rock-crawling and driving in deep dry sand for extended periods which can overheat the transmission components in the CX-5. It takes a surprising amount of applied horsepower to drive through deep sand or climb up rugged obstacles and high hp means lot's of heat needs to be dissapated - this is not the CX-5's forte. Snow and ice - not only no problem but a much better solution than an off-road 4x4. If you are really worried about nasty winter conditions you want snow tires, not an off-road vehicle.



To be honest, I kind of lust after the Toyota FJ Cruiser, and have considered getting a used one, but the MPG rating and rear visibility (for when my wife's driving) concerns me.

You are probably right to be worried about fuel economy. I know I like my freedom to travel about and I don't want to worry about the cost. My CX-5 get's exceptional fuel economy (considering it's a roomy AWD vehicle) and is fun to travel in.

Buying a car is a decision that should be made with the rational side of your brain, not that other side that men sometimes let get in the way. ;-)
 
I cross-shoped the CX-5 and the Crosstrek before ever seeing either in person. Once I sat in both the Crosstrek dropped off my list. It is indeed a hatchback/wagon with a high ride height. Not bad in any way, but for similar amounts of money (albeit with better base features) the CX-5 was way better for what I was looking for.
 
I've already seen a few new Rav4's on the street (first saw at SJ car show in January). Doubt most casual car drivers will even notice it. Doesn't stand as much visually like CX-5 or new Escape.
 
I've already seen a few new Rav4's on the street (first saw at SJ car show in January). Doubt most casual car drivers will even notice it. Doesn't stand as much visually like CX-5 or new Escape.

I see them almost every day since my office is near a Toyota dealer. Even though it was very convenient to go look at one up close and personal, never wanted to from what I saw on the lot.
 
Hey guys, have any of you driven a Subaru XV Crosstrek? Similar price range and MPG. Some specs from Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/xv-crosstrek/2013/features-specs.html?sub=suv&style=200433893
25/33mpg
.

After writing my first post, I did later test out the Crosstrek. I was very unimpressed. I drove the CVT version, oh my, it was so sluggish.

Also there is good reason to believe that it won't hit that gas mileage either. The Impreza with the same engine and tranny is EPA rated 27/36. When Consumer Reports tested it, they got 19/32. They usually get better than EPA estimates for highway driving. Given that the Crosstrek is heavier and less aerodynamic, I suspect it will do even worse.

I just wasn't impressed by the vehicle at all. I feel it is in desperate need of a better engine.
 
I checked out the Cleveland Auto Show today and got a good look at the 2014 Subaru Forrester and was really impressed by its design inside and out. The whole CVT situation is a love-it / hate-it proposition, but I think it would at least warrant a look-see and test drive once they hit dealerships in another month or so. It's the only competitor to the CX-5 I saw today that even enters the picture as a possible alternative purchase for me.
 
I checked out the Cleveland Auto Show today and got a good look at the 2014 Subaru Forrester and was really impressed by its design inside and out. The whole CVT situation is a love-it / hate-it proposition, but I think it would at least warrant a look-see and test drive once they hit dealerships in another month or so. It's the only competitor to the CX-5 I saw today that even enters the picture as a possible alternative purchase for me.
The '14 Forester doesn't even have projectors or HIDs. What $30k car doesn't come with them now? (A lot) Just so cheap to use halogen headlights.
 
My wife and I had a long day yesterday of testing out some SUVs. We started out at the Mazda dealer. She was initially hesitant about even trying a CX-5 because of our disappointing experience with the CX-7, but they had sent me a card in the mail recently where they expressed interest in buying our CX-7 outright for an "aggressive" offer. While they checked out our CX-7, we test drove a CX-5. We both really liked it. Definitely felt a bit smaller in terms of shoulder room, etc. inside the cabin, but it seemed to have plenty of storage capacity (according to the specs I pulled from Edmunds, it's got more storage capacity than the CX-7). We tried a Touring edition, since it wasn't too much more than the Sport and had the more powerful engine, with supposedly just a minor loss in MPG. My wife appreciated the power driver seat which comes with the Touring edition (take note, that will turn out to play a significant role in our day).

Unfortunately, when we got back inside to find out what they were willing to offer us for the CX-7, they told us that there was a significant issue with our Carfax report. It was indicating that the airbag had been deployed in Sep 2012. The date listed corresponded to a day when my wife was rear-ended in a private parking lot, and our CX-7 sustained a minor scratch/scuff, that was so minor that we didn't even touch it up. The airbag was certainly not deployed. The other person's car (I think a Honda Accord) had possibly a broken headlight and minor dent, but nothing too significant (and certainly no airbag deployment in her car, either). She wanted to call the police and file a claim, so my wife had to wait around for that. The cop indicated that because it was on private property, he wouldn't be filing an official police report. Anyway, now we have to try to work through Carfax to get this removed/corrected, and I have a feeling it's going to be a huge pain. The Mazda dealer indicated that it would cost us at least $2000 on the trade-in value.

At that point, I was practically ready to go home, not being in a very good mood, and thinking we should focus on getting the Carfax corrected instead of even bringing it to any other dealers for them to appraise, but we wanted to try out the Honda CR-V and new Toyota RAV4, so we marched on. The Honda was next and I wasn't expecting for it to be at the top of my list, simply because it's styling does nothing for me. We both were pleasantly surprised by the way it drove, though, and kind of liked that the rearview camera allowed you to cycle between three different views. But you had to go all the way up to the EX-L model (around $29k list) to get a power driver seat. This is a problem for my wife because I tend to drive her SUV as much as I drive my car (mainly when I need to haul something around, or even just go grocery shopping). She doesn't want to have to use the lever to raise the seat that I've lowered. So one thing we experimented with was to see if we could both find a seat height that would work for both of us. On top of that, we decided to explain the Carfax issue to the sales rep, who brushed it off as a non-issue, only to later tell us that their appraisal info is shared with the Mazda dealer (same overall company), so it wouldn't be any different/better than what they quoted us.

After that, we took a brief drive through a Subaru parking lot and confirmed my suspicions: my wife wasn't interested in what they had (they looked "squished" as she put it). She wants to drive higher up.

Next up was the Toyota dealer (different company). We first walked around outside and looked at the RAV4, Highlander, and an Brick Red '08 FJ Cruiser (we both like that color). I knew that they had the used FJ there, but wasn't seriously interested in it as they were asking $26k for it (low mileage @ 24k miles, but still rather pricey for an '08). We then went inside and sat inside a RAV4. Exterior/interior was attractive, but it looked "small", probably because it sat next to a Highlander. The CX-5 didn't look small likely because it was sitting next to other smaller cars at the Mazda dealer. We then discovered the next issue with the RAV4: no power seats on the model inside, and because it had a sunroof, I definitely seemed to notice a lack of headroom. I quickly checked what features came with which models, and determined that you had to go all the way up to a Limited (about $30k list) to get a power driver seat. However, the base Sport model did not have a sunroof (something we don't care about anyway), so we talked to a rep and specifically asked to test drive a Sport model. I think we were both pretty impressed with the RAV4, but definitely felt like the CX-5 offered more for the money. We then took the FJ for a spin, just to compare. My wife liked it (she had driven one before), but I was now thinking more logically about whether it really made sense (about 18mpg, harder entry, more blindspots). Nevertheless, after that, we decided to take one last trip to a Toyota dealer close to our home that had a Silver '10 FJ Cruiser with about 60k miles for $23,700...

First impression of the Silver FJ was that their prep team would need to do some work. The prior owner used it for their business and had stickers on the side and back with their .com address. The windshield had a chip in it, and there were some dings and scuffs in the paint, but from a couple feet away you didn't really notice any of that and it looked pretty clean. Inside, there was a tear in the driver's seat. The sales rep seemed confident that most of that would be fixed by them, but I always wonder when a dealer has had a car in their possession for a week or more, why they didn't correct those issues proactively, so we'd definitely want to get it all in writing ahead of time. The test drive went OK, though the engine and wind noise seemed louder than I had remembered the previous '08 test drive going. In 2010 they added a rear view camera, but it shows up in a tiny window in your rear view mirror. It was blurry (maybe the camera itself just needed to be cleaned) and harder to use overall (the small SUVs we tested earlier in the day had guidelines, etc.). However, the FJ also had proximity sensors which started to beep when my wife tested out backing into a parking spot, and she thought those were great.

When we left there we stopped for some groceries and my wife ran into Five Guys to get our daughter (who had been home alone all day - she's 14) some fries. One of the guys working at Five Guys spotted the FJ Cruiser brochure in her purse and proceeded to tell her about how his friend got an FJ and now regrets the purchase because of the blind spots, parking difficulties, etc. Apparently he was also originally interested in getting a CX-5. Ha!

So our first order of business now is to try to get the Carfax issue corrected. If we decide to go new (most likely with the CX-5), what options are there these days for requesting online anonymous quotes from area dealers? I used one of them in the past (when I bought my RX-8), but I've forgotten the name of it. I did some Googling yesterday and came across something called carwoo! We're also Costco members and I guess there's a service they offer. Normally I prefer to buy used, but if we do buy new, I prefer to work through these types of services ahead of time, rather than deal with the nonsense of haggling at a stealership.
 
The FJ is a 4300 lb heavy truck based SUV with 2 doors, large engine and poor fuel economy. It is best for off-roading, which I suspect you don't really do.
Personally, I don't get why people like to drive higher-up because these vehicles compromise driving qualities, weight and fuel-economy to get you at this driving position (i'd drive an AWD wagon). If you must, and since you mentioned you are fine with used, perhaps consider a used RAV4 which you can get with no moon roof or perhaps a used Escape (truck-based as well).
 
Carfax stuff

Power seats stuff

Other cars, value compared to competitors

How to get good offer

1. Good luck with the carfax deal. They are a pain. Goes to show how inaccurate those reports really are. Since you're in no rush to get into a different vehicle, take your time and see if this goes away. It'll definitely try your patience. If you're only looking into getting a new vehicle because of the dealer's "aggressive offer," you might want to see if you can sell on your own? Or just not go through with it unless you really like the new CX-5 that much more than your current. The CX-5 is nice. Or just drive your current vehicle until you really want/need to swtich.

2. Power seats are nice, but I don't see what the big deal is about power seats. They aren't nearly as useful as power locks, power windows. They aren't even that good without a "memory feature" that can record your seat settings. Which is interesting, because the new Rav4 does have the memory feature to remember your previous setting. I don't know which trim offers the memory feature, but it's probably the best thing about power seats.

3. I'm surprised that you consider the CX-5 good value compared to the other Japanese makes (CR-V/Rav4) because I definitely felt the opposite. Sunroof comes standard on those, you have to option it out for the CX-5. You have to completely option out the CX-5 to get the best value. Where the CX-5 really gives you the best value is on the Grand Touring w/ tech package because of the technology there. The blind-spot and camera and adaptive headlights would normally add +$5000 on a luxury car. And that combination isn't available on the other cars. In style and technology, the CX-5 wins but really only at the high end. So since we were buying the top trim anyways, the CX-5 won easily for us.

2013 Rav4's are new and inventory is low (so basically few discounts). The CX-5 is one year older and you can get discounts. The CR-V is ugly and will be dated soon. So another win for the CX-5. We also had loyalty money.

4. I used Costco and they gave me the best rate. I shopped 3 large cities (Dallas, San Antonio, Austin). You might not be as lucky to be able to shop 3 large metro areas like me and your Costco price might be different. You definitely have to do some work to find your best deal.
 
The FJ is a 4300 lb heavy truck based SUV with 2 doors, large engine and poor fuel economy. It is best for off-roading, which I suspect you don't really do.
Personally, I don't get why people like to drive higher-up because these vehicles compromise driving qualities, weight and fuel-economy to get you at this driving position (i'd drive an AWD wagon). If you must, and since you mentioned you are fine with used, perhaps consider a used RAV4 which you can get with no moon roof or perhaps a used Escape (truck-based as well).
I love the look of the FJ, but I'll be the first to admit that it's not the right fit for us practicality-wise. No, we don't do off-roading. We *would* like to purchase a couple of kayaks and take advantage of the Farmington River near us, but that would, at most, require us to drive the vehicle onto a dirt path to get to an entry point. It would also require something that is capable of fitting a roof rack. In the CT winters, we don't really need a serious 4-wheel drive vehicle...AWD should be plenty. And while I at one time thought about getting a boat, I've pretty much dismissed that now (we're not close enough to the shore, so we wouldn't get enough use out of it), so no use wasting money/gas-mileage on a tow-friendly vehicle. So we're left with styling and sitting up high. I actually don't appreciate the latter (my wife does). I actually prefer being low to the ground. But this will primarily be my wife's car, so I have to sell her on everything.

I think I can steer her away from the FJ (I'm really at fault for this anyway, because I was wooed by the stying). Another vehicle I've tried to keep on the list is a 4Runner. Still bad on gas mileage, but I know they're rock-solid reliable, and it would give her the extra driving height she likes. But they keep their value, so to get one at a price I like, we're looking at a used one, and they often have higher mileage. She gets worried about the high mileage, so it may be out of the picture because of that.

Regarding the Ford Escape, she actually likes those (moreso the boxier older models), but I'm a bit more hesitant about buying a used Escape vs a used Japanese vehicle.

I think she wouldn't be interested in a used RAV4, since it seems like they've been making them bigger and bigger with each iteration, and she still felt like this latest one seemed a bit small. A used CR-V might be an option, even though it doesn't appeal to us style-wise.

Another used option I've considered (which gets us features and MPG) is a used Lexus 400h. I've seen some used ones in the $24k range. I do worry a little about the long-term reliability aspects of Hybrids, but the people on the Lexus forums seem to be pretty happy with them.
 
2. Power seats are nice, but I don't see what the big deal is about power seats. They aren't nearly as useful as power locks, power windows.
Well everyone gives you power locks and windows on the base models now, so that's a non-factor. You don't need to convince me about power seats, but it's important to my wife, so that's all that really matters.

3. I'm surprised that you consider the CX-5 good value compared to the other Japanese makes (CR-V/Rav4) because I definitely felt the opposite. Sunroof comes standard on those, you have to option it out for the CX-5. You have to completely option out the CX-5 to get the best value. Where the CX-5 really gives you the best value is on the Grand Touring w/ tech package because of the technology there. The blind-spot and camera and adaptive headlights would normally add +$5000 on a luxury car. And that combination isn't available on the other cars. In style and technology, the CX-5 wins but really only at the high end. So since we were buying the top trim anyways, the CX-5 won easily for us.
You may be right, but I guess it's all about which features you value and which you don't. For my wife, the power seats were important. That meant spending about $26.7k for a Mazda Touring vs $29k+ for a CR-V EX-L or RAV4 Limited, so a pretty significant difference. If you don't care about power seats, then I think it comes down to Bluetooth. If you don't need/care about that, then the base CX-5 still seems priced attractively, but if you do care about Bluetooth, I could see how the base CR-V or RAV4 might look more attractive value-wise.

All that said, I don't think the peppier engine is really all that important to us (and the extra 1-2mpg of the lower-HP engine might be nice), so another thought would be for me to look into a used or leftover 2013 CX-5 Touring. Anyone have any idea how much we might save on a new 2013 Touring vs a 2014 Touring?
 

New Threads and Articles

Back